HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
NEW FEDERALISM
THE URBAN
INSTITUTE
A product of
“Assessing the
New Federalism,”
an Urban Institute
Program to Assess
Changing Social
Policies
Income Support and
Social Services for
Low-Income People
in California
Rob Geen, Wendy Zimmermann,
Toby Douglas, Sheila Zedlewski, and
Shelley Waters Boots
T
he recession of the early 1990s
hit California harder than the
rest of the nation, causing revenue shortfalls and increased
demand for services. Only in the
past few years has the state’s
economic recovery substantially
improved the budget picture, giving the state
greater spending flexibility than it has had for
some time. Important constitutional amendments and statutory provisions passed by
the voters have also shaped both the
state’s and local governments’ fiscal
and policy choices. A strong governor and a strong legislature
have clashed in recent years
on a variety of policy
issues, including welfare reform and
the related issues
of state-county devolution and funding of services for immigrants.
State
Characteristics
fornia is one of the most ethnically diverse
states in the country, with a population that is
more than 30 percent Hispanic and 10 percent
Asian.
California’s child well-being profile is
mixed—the state has better indicators of child
health combined with a substantially higher proportion of births to teens (71 per thousand versus
59 per thousand), lower basic reading and math
levels, and higher juvenile arrest rates than the
nation. Although its per capita income is
slightly higher than the nation’s
($24,073 in 1995 compared with
$23,208), its child poverty rate is
worse (25.6 percent in 1994
compared to 21.7 percent
for the nation).
Between 1990
and 1993, California experienced its deepest
recession since that of
the 1930s. Due to the
recession and federal defense
spending cuts, the state lost over
700,000 jobs, and in 1993 its unemployment rate peaked at 9.2 percent.
Since that time, the state’s economy has
recovered steadily, though its unemployment
rate remains higher than the national average.
Several voter initiatives and state fiscal
actions have significantly altered how the state
and counties can raise and spend money. In
1978, Proposition 13 constrained state and
local governments’ ability to raise revenue by
Important
constitutional
amendments and
statutory provisions passed
by the voters have shaped both
the state’s and local
governments’ fiscal
and policy
choices.
California’s population (at 31 million) is the largest in the nation, making up
12 percent of the U.S. population. It is a highly urban state with only 14 percent of its residents living in rural areas, half the national
average (table 1). One-quarter of California’s
population consists of immigrants, accounting
for one-third of America’s foreign-born. Cali-
Highlights, CA ISSS, November 1998
Table 1
State Characteristics, 1995
California
United States
Population (1995) (in thousands)
Percent under 18 (1995)
Percent Hispanic (1995)
Percent Non-Hispanic Black (1995)
Percent Noncitizen Immigrant (1996)a
Percent Rural (1990)
Population Growth (1990–95)
31,617
28.7%
30.6%
6.4%
18.8%
14.4%
6.2%
260,202
26.8%
10.7%
12.5%
6.4%
36.4%
5.6%
Births:
Percent to Unmarried Women (1994)
Percent to Women under 20 That Were Nonmarital (1994)
Per 1,000 Women Ages 15–19 ( 94)
35.7%
70%
71
32.6%
76%
59
State Economic Characteristics
Per Capita Income (1995)
Percent Change in Per Capita Personal Income (1990–95)
Percent Poor (1994)
Unemployment Rate (1996)
Employment Rate (1996)
Percent Persons Receiving AFDC
Percent Persons Receiving Food Stamps
$24,073
13.1%
16.2%
7.2%
60.8%
8.5%
10.1%
$23,208
21.2%
14.3%
5.4%
63.2%
5.1%
10.1%
38.4%
14.9%
35.7%
13.8%
33.0%
14.7%
25.6%
$36,349
12.1%
38.1%
16.1%
21.7%
$37,109
10.0%
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
Population Characteristics
Family Profile
Percent Two-Parent Families (1994)
Percent One-Parent Families (1994)
Percent Mothers with Child 12 or under
Working Full Time (1994)
Working Part Time (1994)
Percent Children below Poverty (1994)
Median Income of Families with Children (1994)
Percent Children Uninsured (1995)
Source: Complete list of sources is available in Income Support and Social Services for Low-Income People in California (The
Urban Institute, 1998).
a. These numbers have been corrected since the printing of the full state report, based on a three-year average of the Current Population Survey (March 1996–March 1998), edited by The Urban Institute to correct misreporting of citizenship.
limiting property tax rates and requiring either a two-thirds majority in the
state legislature or a referendum to
raise taxes. In 1988, Proposition 98
established a minimum state funding
guarantee for K–12 schools and community colleges. Intended to create a
floor for education funding, Proposition 98 has actually acted as a ceiling
on all other spending. In 1991, the
state increased the share of funding
counties must provide for services in
several key areas, including mental
health, indigent health, and child welfare. In return, the counties were provided with an increased share of state
2
revenues. This exchange, considered
revenue-neutral at the time, turned
out to provide the counties with less
revenue than anticipated. In addition,
a series of property tax shifts further
moved responsibility for funding
public services to the counties.
Setting the Policy
Context
As a result of the state’s severe
recession and the constitutional constraints on revenue raising and expenditures, recently California has
focused more on cost savings than on
developing or expanding programs
for disadvantaged families. Welfare
benefits were particularly targeted for
cuts, partly because other large programs were protected either politically or statutorily. In the last year, the
state has had a budget surplus, which
prevented a further reduction in welfare benefit levels.
Political power is split in California, with a Republican governor
and Democratic control of the
Assembly and the Senate. The power
of the current legislature is limited,
however, because California law
requires a two-thirds majority, which
Basic Income Support
California has traditionally provided very generous income support
for its low-income population. Its Aid
for Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) (now California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids,
CalWORKs) benefit levels have been
among the highest in the nation. And
the state requires counties to provide
General Relief (GR) to all indigent
individuals who do not qualify for
AFDC (table 2). Health and welfare’s
share of total state spending in California has remained relatively stable
over the past five years, at slightly
over 30 percent of the total general
fund budget.
AFDC
California’s AFDC program has
changed substantially in recent years
to encourage work and employmentfocused activities. Along with these
changes have come benefit cuts,
though not enough to offset the costs
of caseload growth. Through federal
waivers and state legislation, nominal
AFDC benefits declined by almost 11
Table 2
Social Welfare Spending in California, 1995–96
Program
Spending (in millions)
Income Security
AFDC Benefits (1996)
AFDC Admin. (1996)
General Relief (1996)
Food Stamps (1995)
SSI for Children (1995)
Federal EITC (1994)
$5,568 (federal, state, county)
$232 (federal, state, county)
$465 (county)
$2,175 (federal)
$419 (federal)
$2,942 (federal)
Employment and Training
JOBS (GAIN) (1996)
JTPA (1995)
$295 (federal, state, county)
$335 (federal)
Child Care
AFDC Child Care (1995)
At-Risk Child Care (1995)
CCDBG (1995)
State Child Care (1995)
State Preschool (1995)
Head Start (1995)
Total (1995)
$202 (federal, state, county)
$39 (federal)
$111 (federal)
$372 (state)
$99 (state)
$381 (federal)
$1,204
Source: See Income Support and Social Services for Low-Income People in
California (the Urban Institute, 1998).
percent between 1992 and 1996,
implying even larger cuts in real purchasing power. The state’s benefit
level is still more generous than that of
the average state, however, with a
family of three eligible for a maximum benefit of $594 a month in 1996,
and a joint AFDC–food stamp benefit
of $907 a month, 86 percent of the
federal poverty level.
California has been at the forefront
of state welfare reform experimentation, having been awarded four federal
waivers to encourage movement of welfare recipients into the workforce long
before federal welfare reform in 1996.
In 1992–94, it incorporated these
waivers into its Assistance Payments
and Work Pays Demonstration, which
increased the incentive to work by
removing time limits on earned income
disregards, increasing allowable savings and durable goods, and removing
restrictions on the work of the second
adult in AFDC’s unemployed parent
provision. In 1994 the state also
received a waiver to improve the outcomes of teen mothers on AFDC. This
program, Cal Learn, emphasized school
attendance and parental responsibility.
California has also incorporated its
new work focus into its welfare-related
employment and training services program. Until recently, participation in
the state’s JOBS program (Greater
Avenues for Independence [GAIN])
averaged only 20 percent of the welfare
caseload, due to budget limitations,
extensive exemptions, and a welfare
office focus on benefit accuracy rather
than moving recipients into work.
Starting in 1995, the state required
counties to emphasize a Work First
strategy in their GAIN program, mandating job search as the first activity.
This action followed the success of a
GAIN experiment in Riverside, which
focused on immediate job placements
instead of education and training and
was able, consequently, to serve many
more clients. California has recently
provided additional financial assistance
to counties for their GAIN programs
without a required county match. It has
also tightened the exemptions and
sanctioning processes. The result has
been increased GAIN participation and
employment rates, and new county
efforts to break down the structural separation between AFDC and GAIN.
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
the Democrats lack, to pass a budget
bill. The governor, in contrast, has
broad discretion to veto any line item
in budget bills passed by the legislature. Both sides are active in setting
policies for low-income families, but
they rarely agree on the direction, setting the stage for drawn-out legislative battles not only on welfare reform
but also on taxes, services for immigrants, and indigent health care.
Most social welfare programs in
California are state supervised and
county administered. State agencies
set overall policies, make rules, determine eligibility criteria, and set benefit levels. State agencies also monitor
local practices and provide technical
assistance to counties to ensure state
policies are followed. Within these
parameters, counties have varying
amounts of administrative flexibility.
County decisionmaking authority and
fiscal responsibility have been and
continue to be contentious issues. The
state welfare reform legislation as
finally passed provides counties with
significantly more discretion in
administering their welfare programs.
3
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
General Relief
General Relief has presented a
major challenge to many counties in
the 1990s, as those with the largest
caseloads have also faced the most
economic troubles. California is the
only state in the nation that mandates
GR benefits but leaves all costs to the
counties. State statutes determine the
minimum GR benefit, with counties
determining actual benefit levels. In
1991, the state minimum was $291 a
month, 60 percent of the federal
poverty level. In 1993, the state lowered the minimum to $221 a month
for counties in significant financial
distress. In 1996, the state legislature
permitted counties to restrict GR eligibility to 3 months out of any
12-month period for those
deemed employable, reduce
GR for the value of Medicare
up to $40 a month, reduce benefits by 25 percent for those
who share housing, and make
substance abuse treatment
mandatory. Some counties
have adopted all the allowed
restrictions, others the shared
housing and substance abuse
provisions but not all of the
benefit cuts. And many are
ambivalent about time-limiting benefits to a group with
major labor force barriers. Many in the
advocacy community have actively
opposed these new GR limits, constraining counties’ efforts to make reforms.
California has been at the
forefront of state welfare
reform experimentation,
having been awarded
four federal waivers
to encourage movement of
welfare recipients into the
workforce long before federal
welfare reform in 1996.
Programs That
Promote Financial
Independence
To help promote self-sufficiency,
cash assistance programs often need
to be supplemented with employment
and training, subsidized child care,
child support collection efforts, and
health insurance coverage.
Employment and Training
Following the national trend, the
goal of California’s employment and
training system is to become an integrated, seamless delivery model that
meets the needs of all low-income, disadvantaged job seekers. Achieving the
goal has been difficult, however, be
cause 13 different state agencies and 10
4
advisory councils administer 22 programs. In addition, the governor has
focused on developing a highly skilled
workforce through economic development rather than employment and training for the disadvantaged.
The state has placed high priority
on developing a statewide One-Stop
center system to serve all population
groups seeking employment development services, provide employers and
job seekers with choices about information sources, offer a seamless delivery
system, and set performance-driven
outcome measures. State and local
agencies have all supported greater
integration, but they do not necessarily
agree on what structure and program
components the One-Stop vision
should have. The almost 100 OneStops that already exist at the local
level vary widely. While local variation is consistent with the state’s
vision, the agency is trying to promote
a more uniform system across all the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
Service Delivery Areas by distributing
federal and state grant money competitively on the basis of which counties
best meet the state vision.
The state is also faced with a local
system in which the degree of coordination between GAIN and JTPA varies
greatly. The Department of Social
Services (DSS) ensures that counties
deliver GAIN services within given
parameters. But the California Employment Development Department maintains less policy oversight for JTPA, not
only because it is federally driven but
also because California officials
believe localities best understand the
employment and training needs of their
clientele. As a consequence, in some
areas GAIN and JTPA maintain conflicting program approaches, with
some of JTPA’s Private Industry Councils worrying that the One-Stop focus
will force them to place disproportionate resources on the welfare population,
that they will lose resources to welfare
departments, and/or that they will be
left out of the welfare reform process
altogether.
Child Care
California has traditionally been
highly supportive of subsidized child
care and early childhood development
programs for low-income families,
especially those not on welfare. In 1992,
California ranked sixth in the nation in
per-child expenditures on child care
and early childhood development,
and in 1994 it ranked fifth in the percentage of state tax revenues spent
on these services. It also promotes
quality child care through some of
the nation’s toughest regulations.
Even so, different agencies
with differing philosophies administer child care programs for welfare recipients and working poor
families, causing significant coordination problems. DSS has been
responsible for most federally
funded AFDC-related child care
programs, which are state supervised and county administered. The
California Department of Education
(CDE) is responsible for all state-funded
child care and early childhood development programs and for the federal Child
Care and Development Block Grant
(CCDBG)—all programs that are state
administered. The two agencies view
their programs differently. In the simplest terms, DSS views child care as a
support service to assist welfare families to become self-sufficient, while
CDE views it as a form of education.
Further complicating coordination, the
director of DSS is appointed by the governor, while the director of CDE, the
state Superintendent of Schools, is
independently elected. The programs
also vary in eligibility requirements,
maximum payment amounts, eligible
providers, priority groups for subsidies,
and time limits. These inconsistencies
make it difficult for families to maintain
a stable child care arrangement when
moving on and off welfare or from program to program.
Child Support
Locally elected district
attorneys in each county administer child support enforcement
through cooperative arrangements with DSS. Since counties have
had considerable discretion, local
practices and performance cover a
wide range. In 1995, for example, the
share of cases (instances in which the
state has authority to collect child
support from an absentee parent) with
a child support order was under 30
percent in Los Angeles and nearly 75
percent in Alameda. The corresponding percentages of cases with paternity established in the two counties
were under 15 percent in Los Angeles
and 56 percent in Alameda.
The governor and state legislature have passed numerous laws to
improve performance and standardize
collection activities, many of which
are now mandated under federal welfare reform. These reforms have begun
to affect local decisionmaking. But different caseload sizes and the policies
and politics of child support at the county level work against uniformity. In
addition, loosely defined quality controls and lack of data have made it difficult for state-level officials to identify
and assist poorly performing counties.
ment of different agencies
has caused significant
coordination problems.
provide health care to low-income residents who are not eligible for Medi-Cal.
In general, health care assistance
has enjoyed more political support in
California than has cash assistance.
Thus, Medi-Cal covers many optional
groups and more optional services than
all but one other state. Among the 15
largest states, California has the highest
proportion of families on Medicaid—
one in six. Its expenditures per user,
however, are the lowest of the 15, primarily because Medi-Cal pays health
care providers comparatively little for
the services they provide.
Just as they are required to provide
cash assistance, counties in California
are required by law to provide health
services to uninsured individuals who
cannot pay for them. In 1993, they
served 1.7 million indigent persons at
an estimated cost of $2 billion. Funding
comes from the state tobacco tax and
realignment revenue, federal Medicaid
matching disproportionate share funds
for hospitals serving high proportions
of indigent inpatients, and county general revenue. Counties have been strug-
gling with these costs because all these
funding sources have been under
increasing pressure in recent years.
Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Prior to federal welfare reform,
California already had in place an
extensive system of teen pregnancy prevention services funded by the state
Departments of Health Services and
Education and a network of foundations
and nonprofit organizations. Together
these two departments have provided
over $109 million in 1996–97 for teen
pregnancy prevention and intervention
initiatives. However, no state agency is
responsible for coordinating the management or delivery of teen pregnancy
prevention services. Despite the governor’s strong support for a comprehensive approach, state-sponsored
programs remain largely uncoordinated across departments, and community-based organizations have had
difficulty coordinating publicly and
privately funded programs at the local
level.
Last-Resort Safety Net
Programs
Although one of the goals of devolution is to promote the well-being
of children and families, it is important
to consider what might happen to families for whom the new rules and programs do not work as designed. Child
welfare, housing, and other emergency
services have existed for a long time to
“pick up the pieces” when families
cannot cope.
Child Welfare
California is one of 12 states in
which counties administer child welfare services. In all counties except
Los Angeles, these offices are housed
in the county social services agency.
In response to high and increasing
numbers of children in foster care, the
state has increased the county share of
foster care maintenance payments
from 5 percent to 60 percent. In addition, the state has become more active
in directing, advocating, and providing resources to implement prevention strategies to reduce out-of-home
placements. The state has also expanded its training and technical
assistance and its promotion of pre-
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
Low-income families in California
The federally supported development of
also face major barriers to accessing
California’s State Automated Child
child care. Welfare recipients are often
Support System (SACSS) has had
not sufficiently informed by their case
numerous problems and is still far from
workers of the options available to
complete. Many counties are refusing
them, in part because the severe budget
to use it, and Los Angeles has actually
cuts in many welfare offices make it difreceived federal approval to develop its
ficult for case workers to do more than
own child support system separate from
determine families’ eligibility for welSACSS.
fare. This situation may be changing, as
Medicaid and Other Health
many county welfare offices are inInsurance
creasing their commitment to providing
child care in the new Work First enviMedi-Cal, California’s Medicaid
ronment. Nonwelfare working famiprogram, is the primary health insurlies—who pay a sliding scale fee that
ance program for low-income famidepends on the family’s income—have
lies. In addition, counties use a variety
difficulty accessing services because
of county, state, and federal funds to
there is no centralized place to
apply and, once they apply, they
California has been
face long and uncoordinated
highly supportive of subwaiting lists, since the supply of
sidized child care and early
child care providers is inadequate. The state estimates that
childhood development
only 20 percent of eligible famiprograms for low-income
lies receive subsidies to help pay
families . . . but the involvefor child care.
5
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
Table 3
California’s TANF Program
Eligibility
Income eligibility is $1,360/month for a recipient family of three with no unearned
income or child care expenses; asset limit is $2,000 for families with no members
over age 60 and $3,000 for families for a member over age 60.
Diversion
Applicants may receive a lump sum cash payment to assist them through a shortterm crisis rather than going on aid. These families will still be eligible for
Medi-Cal and child care. Counties can decide to provide clients with this diversionary grant, the amount of the grant, and the payment method (i.e., cash or
noncash).
Time Limits
Exemptions apply to the elderly, disabled adults, adults caring for a disabled person, and adults facing general hardship. Upon reaching the federally mandated
60-month cumulative limit, families receive a child-only grant. (Counties decide
whether to provide vouchers or cash.)
Income Disregards
Disregards $225 and 50 percent of the remainder.
Work Requirements
Adults who are new applicants must participate in work activities at least within 18
months of benefit receipt; current recipients must participate within 24 months.
Caretakers of a youngest child under 6 months are exempt. (Counties have the
flexibility to lengthen the exemption age to 12 months or shorten it to 12 weeks.)
Work Sanctions
At first instance of noncompliance, removal of adult from benefit; at second instance
of noncompliance, removal of adult from benefit for 3 months; at subsequent
instances of noncompliance, removal of adult from benefit for 6 months.
If a client has been sanctioned for over 3 months, then a county must issue vouchers
or vendor payments for at least rent and utilities until the parent is no longer sanctioned.
Benefit Level
Families receive benefits based on a two-tier regional grant structure. In a highcost county, a family of three with no other income receives $565/month; in a
low-cost county, $538/month.
Family Cap
A cap is placed on family benefit levels so that benefits are not increased if a
child is born to a family already on welfare.
Source: For eligibility, One Year after Federal Welfare Reform: A Description of State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Decisions as of October 1997, L. Jerome Gallagher, Megan Gallagher, Kevin Perese, Susan Schreiber, and Keith Watson.
The Urban Institute, Assessing the New Federalism Occasional Paper Number 6, June 1998. Other information is from Income
Support and Social Services for Low-Income People in California, Rob Geen, Wendy Zimmermann, Toby Douglas, Sheila
Zedlewski, and Shelley Waters. The Urban Institute, Assessing the New Federalism State Report, June 1998.
vention, protection, and family
preservation strategies. Even so,
counties, in this as in other areas,
retain significant discretion, and practices continue to vary greatly. One of
the factors increasing the foster care
load is California’s mandate that relatives be given first consideration,
since relatives have longer placements and are much less likely to
adopt than unrelated caregivers. Recently, California received a federal
waiver to use federal foster care funds
to provide subsidized guardianships
6
for adolescents placed permanently
with relatives.
Emergency Services and Housing
California has no state-level plan for
assisting its homeless people. The state
provides one-time short-term assistance
to its AFDC-eligible homeless families.
Otherwise localities have direct responsibility for policy, funding, administration,
and delivery of homeless services
through federal McKinney funding and
Community Development Block Grant
dollars. Most have mirrored the federal
government in moving toward a continuum of care with strong emphasis on transitional and permanent housing.
Implications of the
New Federal Reform
Legislation
California was one of the last states
to pass legislation (CalWORKs) implementing the reforms specified under
TANF—eventual passage of which
followed months of contentious
Finally, CalWORKs prohibits recipients who have been sanctioned or
have reached their time limit from
receiving county-funded General
Relief until all children have reached
age 18.
The federal restrictions on immigrant eligibility for benefits present
one of the most contentious issues in
the state’s welfare reform debate.
Despite the governor’s historically
tough stance, California’s treatment
of legal immigrants under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)
is relatively generous. The state has
opted to keep TANF and Medicaid
eligibility for legal immigrants, and
the governor has approved provision
of state-funded food stamps to some
of those who lose eligibility for federal food stamps.
Undocumented immigrants are in
a very different position. Governor
Wilson has taken an aggressive
approach toward barring them from
state and local programs, including
prenatal care, community health services, and unemployment insurance
disability benefits. His efforts have
been held up, however, by extensive
court challenges. California is out in
front on these restrictions, as most
other states have not taken any such
steps.
CalWORKs continues to carry
the state down the path it was on prior
to the federal welfare reform legislation, requiring welfare recipients to
work and take responsibility for their
families. Implementation of the program begins in 1998, as the state is
enjoying its strongest economy in
nearly a decade. The impact and
effectiveness of CalWORKs, however, are likely to depend on the continued strength of California’s economy.
If the past is a good predictor, the
strength of California’s economy will
also have a large role in shaping
future state policies toward lowincome children and families.
About the Authors
Rob Geen is a research
associate in the Urban Institute’s Population Studies
Center, specializing in child
welfare and related child,
youth, and family issues.
Mr. Geen was co-leader of
the Assessing the New Federalism project’s California
case study team.
Wendy Zimmermann is a
research associate in the
Urban Institute’s Population
Studies Center. Her work
focuses on immigration and
immigrant policy.
Ms.
Zimmermann was co-leader
of the California case study
team.
Toby Douglas is a research
associate in the Urban Institute’s Human Resources
Policy Center. At the Institute, he has concentrated on
fiscal policy, homelessness,
and welfare reform issues.
Sheila Zedlewski is the
director of the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits
Policy Center. Her areas of
special interest include income security, health benefits, aging, and taxes.
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
debate between the governor and
Democratic leaders in the state legislature (who also disagreed among
themselves). Federal welfare reform
was a catalyst for local planning,
however, which started long before
the state finalized CalWORKs in late
1997.
CalWORKs alters many key
aspects of California’s AFDC/GAIN
program (table 3) and its subsidized
child care system. Consistent with
federal regulations, it provides timelimited aid. However, aid can be
extended up to 60 months if no job is
available and the recipient performs
community service. Benefits for children continue after a family reaches
its time limit. CalWORKs also increases the earnings disregard and
calculates the grant so that recipients
are always better off working than
not. Recipients must work or participate in a sequence of work activities
that starts with four weeks of job
search, followed by a skills assessment, and then work activity participation as specified in TANF. They
must also cooperate fully with child
support officials, document appropriate immunizations for all preschool
children, and ensure regular school
attendance for school-age children.
With respect to child care, CalWORKs replaces all subsidized child
care programs with a three-stage
system. Stage one, which is administered by the county welfare department, lasts for up to six months or
until the recipient’s situation is stable.
Stages two and three, supervised by
the Department of Education, serve
families continuing on welfare, transitioning families, and former recipients. CalWORKs also establishes a
single payment rate, which counties
and other administering agencies will
be required to pay directly to providers.
The role of the state and counties
in providing welfare assistance has
also changed. The state still determines benefit levels and eligibility
requirements, but counties can change
other program requirements and
apply for waivers to test alternative
ways to deliver CalWORKs services.
They also receive a block grant to
cover administrative costs (within a
maintenance-of-effort requirement).
Shelley Waters Boots is a
research associate in the
Urban Institute’s Population
Studies Center. Her career
has focused on issues related to child welfare, child
care, and child support
enforcement.
7
Funders
Assessing the New Federalism
is funded by the Annie E.
Casey Foundation, the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation, the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, the
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Ford Foundation,
the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation, the
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile
Packard Foundation, the Commonwealth Fund, the Stuart
Foundation, the Weingart Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Fund for New Jersey,
and the Rockefeller Foundation. Additional support is provided by the Joyce Foundation
and the Lynde and Harry
Bradley Foundation through a
subcontract with the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
This report is part of the Urban Institute’s Assessing the New Federalism, a
multi-year effort to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs from
the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director. The
project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, Inc., the project studies child and
family well-being.
There are two Highlights for each state. The Highlights that focus on health
cover Medicaid, other public insurance programs, the health care marketplace,
and the role of public providers. The income support and social services Highlights look at basic income support programs, employment and training programs, child care, child support enforcement, and the last-resort safety net.
The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early 1997.
To receive the full-length reports on which the Highlights are based, contact
the Urban Institute.
Publisher: The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037
Copyright © 1998
Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to the Urban
Institute.
For extra copies call 202-261-5687, or visit the Urban Institute’s web site
(http://www.urban.org) and click on “Assessing the New Federalism.”
The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics
worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and
should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
NEW FEDERALISM: HIGHLIGHTS FROM STATE REPORTS
Telephone: (202) 833-7200 ■ Fax: (202) 429-0687 ■ E-Mail: paffairs@ui.urban.org ■ Web Site: http://www.urban.org
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
2100 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Address Service Requested
Nonprofit Org.
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit No. 8098
Washington, D.C.